Final Reflection on 2014-2015 American Lit and Studies

This year, especially in American Literature, I feel as though I have grown immensely in my ability to take out the main ideas from a text, as well as the finer details based off those main ideas. I have learned how to use FIDDS in a way completely different than last year. Last year, I would say something like, "The imagery really paints a picture in ones head that he is scared....". Now, after everything I feel I have learned this year, I would say something closer to , " The detail describes the fear of ____, and the word _____ does this because...(related it back to thesis). Last year, I did not have the ability to correctly relate all  my evidence back to the thesis, and do it in such a manner that adequately summed up my points. To throw in a IB Learner profile, I would say I became more principled when it comes to writing and literary analysis, because I fell as though I have learned the process well enough over the course of this Literary year.

In American Studies, I feel as though I have grown in being a better reflector, certainly an improvement over last year. I have grown as a reflector in terms of reflecting on how certain events in history have truly affected me and the country and the world in ways that cannot be reversed. Seeing why things happened, what the effects were, is something I have been able to understand better after this year, and a lot of the credit I feel goes to American Studies, because we spend a good chunk of time  analyzing why things happened, and give greater importance to that over when /what happened. Growing as a reflector from this class has enabled me to be a better student in my opinion, as the  improved reflective skill has carried over to other classes, allowing me to analyze my weaknesses, and through reflection, find a solution for them.

The 60s in America

A topic that has been brought up in American Studies a few times over the last couple days is the idea of revolt, or response to an oppression faced by a people. This was epitomized in the Black Panther Movement of the 60s, which served basically as a black police, meaning they were there to protect and serve African-Americans. But the question is, is armed or militant response to oppression ever justified, and in my opinion, yes it definitely can be justified, depending on the degree of oppression and the degree of armed response. In this case of the Civil rights movement,  especially with black Americans, I believe it is justified. For one, this oppression, the racism, the segregation had been going on for so long, that some hard force that would be able to persuade the government that this movement is here to stay and this is for real. The reason I approve of militant response in some scenarios is that it emphasized the strength/power of the movement. However this violent response has to be to an extent to which there is no violence that kills, or violence that is largely unnecesary. Basically it should be in a manner of defending the honor of the race. Not just for the excuse of it and for the sake of being violently opposed to an idea. So in finality, violent response is justified to an extent.

Cold War

The Cold war was a very interesting conflict between the USSR and the USA. The main idea was that it was a battle of ideals and mindsets, and the spread of those ideals. The USA wanted to spread its idea of democracy, but primarily, its economic system of capitalism. This was in opposition to the USSR idea of Communism. There is a huge difference between communism and Communism with a capital C. The communism with a small c represents what communism is supposed to be which is 

1. a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

However, this was different from the Communism that the USSR came to represent. Their representation of communism came to become something more like a dictatorship. So the ideas were spread across nations following the end of world war II. Both countries were considered 'superpowers' and the influence they had on other, less politically potent was very great. They were able to impress their ideals upon nations, and following World War II, the basic conflict was this. However, there was no return to  normalcy, as Foner said; the conflict just kind of continued, with no real end. Both countries wanted to impose themselves, and take down the other, stealthily and with ideals. No real battle happened, more like a battle of ideas and will.   

Restricting Freedom

Prohibition was one of the more tough times in the 1900's. It's funny, because it was supposed to be a time of more peace, and less violence for sure. But, like we have discussed plenty, this act completely backfired. Rather than civilize society and limit domestic violence, it created a sense of anarchy across the entire country of people who still wanted their alcohol. There was a lot of these types of restriction laws going on in this general time period, such as the laws restricting the freedom of speech, Espionage and Sedition Acts. What I find very interesting is the fact that the country felt the need to pull back on advancements. It was not a time when there were an incredible amount of technological advancements being made as a whole. However, I believe that the thought to restrict speech and, in general, rights, was because of the recent war. America wanted to restrict things in general. They stopped free speech during the war, they were extremely paranoid after it, when trying to squash out new ideas.  So while going along with that, Prohibition falls into both of those categories. It kept in line with America's habit of eating rights with restrict rights, however it was also a new idea. So it contradicted what people wanted. Which may be another reason why Prohibition was met with so much hostility and opposition. The other reason being people still wanted their alcohol. This is why Prohibition was such a difficult time in American History. There were so many reasons for people to not agree with Prohibition. In our discussions, we have approached the subject if the repercussions of Prohibition were foreseeable. To be honest, I think they should have been, because of the fact that the government should have seen the resistance to other laws that constricted freedom, the Espionage and Sedition Acts. There was also precedent, like we discussed, from the Revolutionary War.

Week 8- Immigration

Now that we have completely left what can be considered non-modern America, in both classes, issues that now still exist within this country are starting to take front stage. One of the biggest issues in the early 1900's and even now are with the immigration policy of America. America has always and will always be, as longer as its core values are there, a land of opportunity for foreigners. America is a very unique country that way. Now, when so many people start coming to this country, it can become a serious issue. Because they are all so new and foreign to the way America is supposed to work, and what regular norms are, ( at that time), they can become economic burdens. They can't find jobs because they have minimal qualifications. They are treated like infants. This idea of infantalization is actually really interesting because it a repetition of history. Only in a less extreme form, compared to slavery and the treatment of the Native Americans. Until America is able to not think of other races, other people who have not yet established a big population in this country, this infantalization and racism will always continue. If we always think of ourselves as the solvers to all problems, and being superior to others, racism will continue.

Week 7- Assimilation

Assimilation, by definition is he process by which a person or persons acquire the social and psychological characteristics of a group. The Native Americans were as different as one could imagine when comparing two things. Like comparing night and day. The white man and Indians contrasted in almost all ways, except for the fact that they need food and water. As this country became almost completely dominated by Caucasians, it ended the process that began when the first settler landed in mainland America. It had almost completely wiped out all things needed for Native American life. Now, this started a new process. Assimilation. So what happens when you mix to things together that clearly should not be together? One dominates the other. In this case, the Indians adopted all things American. From big changes such as the name of a person and what someone eats to things of slightly less magnitude such as clothes. But these things all have affects on the 'conquered' group. They can being to lose their culture. Which is why I think it takes a lot of determination and commitment to do what that boy Luther did., which was to keep his beliefs. He knew that he had to ADOPT the ways of the white people, but this was not permanent. And he was able to go back to the reservation very similar to how he left it. A true Native American. So what I am trying to say with this is that assimilation s not permanent. Although people can be completely changed based on their surroundings and the people around them, they will (most of the time) have their heritage, in some form with them. Be it being comfortable in cultural clothing despite not wearing it for decades, old habits, or food. Assimilation is at most, temporary in its affects

Week 6-Literature

This week, I feel like we kind of trailed off into a more philosophical path. We talked less about events that happened and more about what was the thinking behind these events, and why these events happened. For this reason, instead of focusing primarily on American Studies and finding connections with American Literature, I will just talk about literature. I actually am really enjoying this poetry unit that we are doing currently in American Literature. I like trying to analyze poems, not stories, for their emotional meaning or appeal, because I feel like poems are more meant to be that way compared to stories. With novels and stories, mainly you are trying to tell a story that can entertain an audience. With poems, you still are telling a story at some level, but the emotion of the poet can show through more evidently and the intended message is more obvious. I also feel that with poems in contrast to with novels, we can pull out more of a variety of interpretations in comparison to novels. More people can come up with different things that make it, at least for me, more engaging to hear these different ideas, rather than just hear several people repeat the same things over and over when analyzing a book.